good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. we're awaiting the white house daily briefing with jen psaki to kick off a really important and historic week for two presidents. the unprecedented second impeachment trial of donald trump beginning tomorrow. the house managers today are going to be planning their prosecution of the case. senate majority leader schumer and newly hire defense team trying to work out a last-minute agreement on procedures. president biden trying to keep the focus on building support for his covid relief bill but the only questions he was asked from reporters as he returned from wilmington today was about the trial of his predecessor, which he is deferring to the senate. >> look, he had an offer to come and testify. he decided not to. let the senate work that out. >> nbc's chief white house

correspondent and co-host of weekend "today," we are learning more about this week's trial. what are you hearing from the hill? >> that's right, andrea. we are hearing in terms of the timing of the trial, there's going to be a vote tomorrow about whether it is constitutional, whether it should go forward and, of course, we will be looking very closely to see if the vote there replicates the initial vote about whether this should move forward in which you had essentially 45 -- you had very strong agreement among republicans that they did not think this was constitutional. only five saying that the trial should move forward. the question becomes, what will the timeline look like, andrea? will this in fact seep into next week? we know democrats and president biden have been hoping that this would be a short trial. some of the them hoping it would be wrapped up within the week.

so will this actually go into next week? for his part, president biden is going to be engaging in a counterprogramming campaign essentially. he's going to try to put the focus on getting his covid relief package passed, building you support at the state and local level, potentially even talking to some governors. we know he's going to have a virtual tour of the vaccination distribution center a little later on today. those are the types of activities you can see throughout the week as biden tries to keep the focus on his priorities and on his agenda. and there's real concern, andrea, among democrats that this could take away from getting that covid relief bill passed by mid-march, which is what they're targeting. >> and meanwhile, the house republicans, really republicans in general, marley house republicans are really caught in a civil war over this impeachment trial. liz cheney coming out and defending herself yesterday on fox news. let's talk about what she is now

saying even as some of her colleagues are threatening to go to wyoming, don jr. are threatening to go to wyoming to campaign against her just for voting for impeachment. here's what she had to say. let's play the tape. >> this is the party of abraham lincoln or ronald reagan, we have to take a hard look at who we are, what we stand for and believe in. somebody who provoked an attack on the united states capitol to prevent the counting of electoral votes which resulted in five people dyeing, who refused to stand up immediately when he was asked and stop the violence, that is a person who does not have a role as the leader of our party going forward. >> really, it indicates a deep divide in the republican party but she is standing furm and going up against kevin mccarthy now. >> she is standing firm, andrea. the entire episode underscores the sharp divides within the

republican party. right now you have a number of liz cheney's republican colleagues voting privately to keep her in her leadership post, which, of course, is what happened last week. while publicly essentially reprimanding her, afraid to stand up to former president trump. so that's part of the challenge. and then, of course, you have marjorie taylor greene, republicans voting to keep her in her leadership position or in her position on committees, i should say, even as the entire house voted to strip her of those committee positions. she is, of course, a staunch supporter of former president trump. she's trying to make the case the republican party is still trump's party and that's why these divides come in, andrea. i think you're going to see that on sharp display this week as that impeachment trial gets under way. >> kristen welker, thank you so much and thank you for being there today, as always. california congresswoman jackie spears, open the intelligence and oversight committee, joins us now.

congresswoman, it's great to see you again. >> great to see you. >> you're part of the narrative, like it or not, you're one of those who experienced terrible trauma in the past when you were in jonestown and almost killed by the hit squad from reverend jones and the cult there after the mass suicide and you survived there. you're a congressional aide, congressman you served with killed. and then you experienced a similar trauma being in the capitol january 6th. how did that bring back the memories of everything you had gone through all of those years ago? >> i was in the gallery, and it was frightening to experience that pounding on the doors. we had to get gas masks out. i was shaking as i was tearing open the pouch. and then we had to control under

the railings to get to the other side. and then they said get down. we got down and i heard a gunshot. and it took me back to 43 years ago and i remember placing my cheek on that cold, marble floor and thinking to myself, i survived the jungles in diana and i could be losing my life here in this tabernacle of freedom and democracy. i couldn't believe here i was at home and it was happening here as well. >> congresswoman, have you taped your narrative? have you talked about this? are you part of the witness testimonies that are going to be presented on video? >> i have not, but i intend to, like so many of my colleagues,

to put into words that every american can hear for decades to come how close we came to losing our democracy. you know, andrea, i think what gets lost in all of this is the fact president trump basically told that mob to go to the capitol, to the congress of the united states, to the branch of government, the equal branch of government that was about to do its job relative to the electoral college, and he told them to fight like hell. fight like hell meant overtaking the legislative branch of government. and we can't lose sight of that. he also said in his remarks later in the day, much later in the day, remember this day forever. this is a man that intended to overtake this government. and it's astonishing to me that

so few of my colleagues on the republican side, even after witnessing that, even after being part of that insurrection, are unwilling to do their jobs and protect the constitution and protect the democracy. >> thank you very much for being with us today. we have to go to the briefing. jen psaki has started. but thank you very much for being with us. jen psaki at the white house. >> and we want to continue to make the case to the american people about the urgency of getting this package through the tax line and hundreds of mayors and elected county officials and stakeholders across the political spectrum. here's a quick overview. a number of you asked about this, to the scope of our efforts. over a dozen senior administration officials conducted over 100 national tv and radio podcast interviews to discuss the american rescue plan. we have done over 30 tv local tv

interviews in states ranging from nevada to louisiana to pennsylvania. in the last week alone our legislative affairs team had done more than 300 calls with members and staff on the hill, including 40 calls with republicans or bipartisan groups. you can expect that the president will engage throughout the course of this week with a range of stakeholders, including business leaders, mayors and governors and as we discussed before, this message is resonating. poll after poll show a bipartisan majority of the american people in support of the president's plan. a couple of other quick updates for all of you. many folks likely noticed, if you all watched the super bowl, the president and first lady appeared in a psa that aired during the pregame show, thanking health care workers and addressing the importance of continuing to wear masks and getting vaccinations when it's your turn. this is a good example of how you can expect the white house in the coming months to leech

out with critical public health messaging as part of an education campaign, meeting americans where they are on their couches watching the super bowl yesterday and communicating about the important mitigation steps people can take. as many of you also know, last night during the super bowl, president biden called service members to thank them for their courage, dedication and service to our nation. he first calls troops with resolute support missions in kabul and "uss nimitz" and broadcast a message to the nearly 5,000 sailors and marines who comprise the "uss nimitz" crew. with that, we can go to your questions. >> does the president have plans to watch any of the trial this week, and does the white house prefer a speedy impeachment trial or would the president prefer a full airing of the violence at the capitol and what

incited it through things like live witnesses? >> first, the president himself would tell you we keep him pretty busy and he has a full schedule this week, which we will continue to keep you abreast of as soon as we have more details. we already announced his plans to visit the nih, to go visit the department of defense. as i noted he will be engaging with business leaders, mayors and governors and, of course, continuing to make the case and have conversations with democrats and republicans directly about his hopes and plans for the american rescue plan moving forward as quickly as possible. so i think it's clear from his schedule and from his intention he will not spend too much time watching the proceedings any time over the course of this week. he will remain explosionly in touch with speaker pelosi, leader schumer, officials on the hill about his plan and that's what they want him to do, remain focused on that. and he will leave the pace and process and mechanics of the

impeachment proceedings up to members of congress. >> president biden said there's no need for trump to receive intelligence briefings. had trump requested any? had he refused any? was that the official decision or who was that decision left up to? >> the president said when asked there was no need for him to receive them and he referenced, of course, his erratic behavior, which i think many americans would agree with him on. he was expressing his concern about former president trump receiving access to sensitive intelligence. but he also has deep trust in his own intelligence team to make a determination about how to provide intelligence information. if at any point the former president requests a briefing so that's not currently applicable but if he should request a briefing, he leaves it to them to make a determination. go ahead. sorry, i have been meeting to go to reuters next. we will go right there next. >> thank you very much. you mentioned there could be

adjustments. one component that was really important for his campaign promise was the $15 minimum wage. the president has already signaled that may not make it into the full package. how important is that measure still to the white house, and how will you get it done? also, the thing that came up this weekend is looking at tweaking the level of who gets the stimulus check? janet yellen mentioned $60,000. can you explain who he gets left out? who is between $60,000 and $75,000? >> sure. the first question, the president remains firmly committed to raising the minimum wage to $15. that's why he put it in his first legislative proposal and he doesn't -- he believes in any american working a full-time job trying to make ends meet should not be at the poverty level. it's important to him that the minimum wage is raised. he was referring this weekend to, as you noted in your question, the parliamentary process. obviously it's the most likely path at this point is through a

reconciliation process. there's a parliamentarian who will make decisions about what can end up in a final package, and that was certainly what he was referencing in husband comments. in terms of what the options are, we'll see what the parliamentarian decides and then we will see what additional options, but we're getting a little ahead of where we are at this point in the process. i'm sure we can continue to have a discussion about it in here. and your second question one more time? >> one of the pieces the president talked about is his openness to engaging and having a discussion about what is called kind of the -- unofficially called, i guess, scale up. his proposals you know proposed $1,400 checks to make the $2,000 whole. he had proposed kind of a threshold. there's a discussion right now about what that threshold will look like. conclusion hasn't been finalized. that will be worked through congress. either way, his bottom line is

that families making $275,000, $300,000 a year may not be the most in need of checks at this point in time. but whatever the threshold is, there will be a scale up. so his view is that a nurse, teacher, firefighter who's making $60,000 shouldn't be left without any support or relief either. it's just a question of whether the scale-up, what it looks like in a final package. but it's still being negotiated at this point in time. >> on the $15, doesn't it make it much harder to get it through if you don't attach it to this covid relief bill? and the cbo is saying if, in fact, you did go through it it would lead to 0.9% reduction in the number of jobs. >> i've heard about the cbo score as i was walking out here, so i haven't talked with our economic team about that specifically. and at this point in time, it's still working its way through the process in congress.

the parliamentarian still has to make a determination about what will be in the final package. >> i have a couple questions on covid, but i would like to start with iran. >> sure. >> president biden said the u.s. would not lift sanctions first and iran would have to stop enriching uranium before negotiations could resume. but since then, the spreert leader has said the u.s. has to act first and roll back sanctions in order to reengage. is that a nonnegotiable point for president biden? and if so, how do you get out of this stalemate? >> just to be very clear, the president never said that exactly. it was stated by the interviewer, norah o'donnell, who did the interview. he didn't respond to the question. so the president's position is that if iran comes back -- >> i think he nodded. >> if we were announcing a major policy change, we would do it in a different way than a slielt

slight head not but overall his position remains what it has been, if iran comes into full compliance with the obligations with the ogca, the united states would do the same. and you said to build a larger and stronger agreement that also addresses other areas of concern. that would, of course, be done with our p-five plus one partners as done when we were putting together jcoa in the fist place. >> what is his response to the u.s. violated the jcpa by abandoning it and if the u.s. is burdened to reengage? >> those were actions of the former administration, as you know. president biden, of course, was part of the administration that were advocating for the plan to be put together to begin with. but i think his position, the position of our national security team and the position he's been in discussion or conveying to our partners is really up to iran to come back to full compliance and with its obligations under the jcpoa and

at that point we can move the discussion forward. >> can you talk about the concrete steps the administration is doing to target and stop the spread of the variants we keep hearing about? does that include surging vaccines to areas impacted like south florida or california with the b117 strain? >> i know for those of you, and we had a lot of briefings today, who had the opportunity to participate in the briefing with some of our medical and health experts, they talked about the importance of not only vaccination, getting the vaccine when you're eligible, that is a protective step. obviously also abiding by the number of mitigation steps our health care representatives recommended but beyond that, i'm not going to go beyond the advise of our health and medical experts at this time. >> the minimum wage, up to the

parliamentarians to be included in here and senator sanders said they're still waiting on that. technically the vice president could overrule the par la tarean on this, and it hasn't happened in a long time but is that an option the white house is considering, would president biden want vice president harris to overrule the parliamentarian to include this in the package? >> i'm not aware of that being allowed. i certain tlak you at your word. i think at our view the parliamentarian who is chosen typically to make a decision in a nonpartisan manner in terms of what should be included in ternz terms of what goes to reconciliation is up to president biden to journey through. >> so when he said it would not survive, who told him it would not make it through likely? >> as the president was in the congress, senate 36 years, again, it still has not worked its way through the process and that could take a bit of time and we certainly defer to the

parliamentarian and members of the house and senate i should say to give you a better assessment of what the timeline looks like. >> as another question on impeachment, to be clear, if the parliamentarian says no, no $15 minimum wage, that's the decision the white house does going with? >> let's see what they say and the president remains committed to raising the minimum wage. it's something he talked about on the campaign trail. something he firmly believes in as a person and as a leader. but there hasn't been a determination made at this point in time. >> on impeachment, the president and white house has not said either way if he believes former president trump should be be convicted by the senate in his trial. but if he doesn't believe he should get access to intelligence briefings, why can't he say whether or not he should be convicted by the senate? >> he's no longer in the senate. he's retired from the senate and he's president of the united states and his focus is on getting relief to the american people. that's what he's conveyed publicly and privately as well. he will leave it to his former colleagues in the senate or

members of the senate to determine the path forward. >> doesn't he think someone, if he believes his behavior is too erratic to get access to intelligence, doesn't he believe he should be barred from holding office again? >> he ran against him because he felt he was unfit for office and he defeated him and that's why he's no longer president -- president trump is not longer president of the united states. i think his views of the former president are pretty clear but he's going to leave it to the senate to see this impeachment proceeding through. go ahead. >> to followup on that question, will the president commit to giving his view once all of the evidence is heard in the impeachment trial? and secondly, a question on myanmar, what is the u.s. doing to perhaps accelerate some of the action we are seeing over the weekend with protests? secondly, how concerned is the u.s. about china, which has not stepped in forcefully and is not calling it a coup? >> sure. we have been, our national security team has been in touch

with a number of our partners and allies. we were outspoken quite quickly in the days following the coup. and we named it, designated it a coup very quickly. in terms of what actions we're taking, there are considerations under way. our policy processes that are under way on our national security team. as we speak, i don't have an update on that today. but when we do, we will certainly make you all abreast of that and certainly we're concerned about china's absence from the conversation and lack of a vocal role here. on the fist question, the president was asked about this this morning and he made pretty clear he wasn't planning to speak to it, so, again, he's no longer in the senate and we put out a statement at the conclusion of the house proceedings, i certainly would consider doing that at the conclusion of the senate but i don't expect he's going to be posturing or commenting on this

through the course of the week. >> jen, i have a question on the focus on energy. when is it the biden administration will let the thousands of fossil few industry workers, whether pipeline workers or construction workers who are either out of work or will soon be out of work because of the eo, when it is and there it is they can go for their green job? that is something the administration has promised. there's now a gap. so i'm curious when that happens, when those people can count on that. >> i certainly welcome you to present your data of all of the thousands and thousands of people who won't be getting a green job, maybe next time you're here, you could present that. >> but he said he would be getting green jobs, so i'm asking when that happens. richard trumingia, a longtime friend of joe biden, said about the day one keystone deal, he said i wish he, the president, had pared that more carefully with the things he did second by

saying, here's where we're creating the jobs. there's partial evidence from richard trumka. >> you didn't include all of his interview. would you like to conclude the rest? >> how about this, the labor international union of north america said the keystone decision will cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction jobs. >> what indicated in the same interview is president biden proposed a climate plan with transformative investments in infrastructure and laid out a plan that will not only create millions of good union jobs but also help tackle the climate crisis. as the president indicated when he gave his primetime address to talk about the american rescue plan, he talked about his plan to also put forward a jobs plan in the weeks or months following. he has every plan to do exactly that. >> but there are people living paycheck to paycheck. there are people out of jobs, will be out of jobs once the keystone pipeline stopped

construction, it's been 12 days since geo mccarthy worked here and 19 days, so when do those people who need money now, when do they get their green jobs? >> the president and many democrats and republicans in congress believe in investing infrastructure, international interest that boosts the u.s. economy, creates good-paying jobs here in america and advances our climate and clean energy goals are something we can work on together and he has every plan to share more about the details of that plan in the weeks ahead. >> quick one on the stimulus, there's reporting house democrats will come out with a $3,000 per child stimulus for some eligible families. is that something that the white house supports making a permanent benefit? >> the president talked about this a bit on the campaign trail and the importance of child tax credits to help working families, ensure they can make ends meet. this proposal is emergency funding, as i understand it.

it's a central priority of the first legislative proposal to cut child poverty in half this year, sorry. and that's why he included a child tax credit in the american rescue plan. that's but that's emergency funding and help people get through this period of time. >> a followup question, what is the white house's stance on universal basic income, the idea of the government giving out regular checks on a routine basis to americans who might need it? >> i know that's been proposed by a number of people, including some on the presidential campaign trail. i don't have anything more for it for you. i will be happy to check with the team. >> are you aware of the democratic needs that enormous -- i won't say enormous but $3,000, $4,000 checks for families right now? >> as i tried to just indicate, the president supports the proposal that representative

neil and others have put toward to ensure that there is money in the package that helps bring relief to families in the form of a child tax credit. that's something he certainly would support. go ahead. >> i have two questions. one of the things secretary yellen said yesterday is the president is open to a mandate on family leave and childcare. is there a timetable on that? >> i don't have any more details or timetable for you. certainly as a father himself, this is an issue that he's spoken about in the past. but i don't have any more details at this point in time. >> also, yesterday the president or did the white house have any concern about what we all saw on tv from tampa about the thousands of people out celebrating and without masks, any concern there? >> certainly. i mean, the president -- i

haven't spoken with him specifically about the events of this weekend, but he did a psa yesterday with dr. biden making clear that social distancing, that mask wearing, that getting the vaccine when you have the opportunity to get the vaccine, are vital steps to keeping more americans safe and saving more lives. certainly, we know the super bowl looked different from what it has in the past, and he also conveyed he's hopeful next year will be a moment where everybody can celebrate and party. but he's, of course, concerned when there are pictures and photos -- we all are -- that show many, many people without masks, in close distance with one another at the height of a pandemic. go ahead. >> two questions. first, president biden said in the cbs interview that he had not spoken to president xi, he had not had occasion to talk to

him but there was no reason not to call him. has it been -- is it actually part of the strategy to not call him yet and hold off on that in hopes of kind of secretary of defensing -- sending a message to china that president biden is not going to work hard to incur favor? >> well, part of our strategy is consult closely with our allies and you saw we read out some of the calls the past week or so, the president spoke with the prime minister of japan, he spoke with the prime minister of south korea, he spoke with the prime minister of australia. and china was, of course, an important topic of conversation during those conversations. he also discussed china with -- in calls with his european allies thus far. part of the strategy is engaging with partners in the region and

allies. and also having conversations with democrats and republicans on capitol hill. i know i can't say this forever but we've only been here 2 1/2 weeks. he's not called every global leader yet. he's not had engagements with all of them. i am sure he will do all of that in the weeks ahead. >> but he has spoken to president putin, somebody who is not quite an ally. >> certainly not. >> and that was more than a week ago at this point. >> but he had that conversation in part because there was a timeline for a new start and the deadline approaching with new start. during that conversation he made clear there are significant concerns he has. the administration has about the reported actions of the russian government. but for the most part, his other calls have been with partners and allies and the region in asia and europe as well at some point in time. >> and somebody else, ron klain said on january 21 that the administration was going to try to build what he described as a

national clearinghouse of information for information about the covid-19. is something like that being built in the administration? if so, how long do you think that will take? i think people are struggling to find information about their state, their counties and there's so much difficulty in the vaccination process. >> had you're right. there's a great deal of confusion. one of the focuses we have had is trying to alleviate that confusion. part of that has been through working with governors and local elected officials. one of their biggest requests has been to have more of a heads-up on how much vaccine supply there would be. of course, to increase vaccine supply, we worked to do both to ensure there's planning time for vaccine allocation, increasement of allotment as supply allows, and, of course, deploying government resources to sites

need ed. we are looking at measures to achieve our goals of getting 100 million vaccines in the arms of 100 million americans in the first 100 days and reach communities where there are higher levels of vaccine he's tennessee. but the president -- the president has directed his team to do whatever tools necessary to get the job done. there are a range of considerations but i don't have any updates on that particular proposal. certainly, a lot of p emwould people would love that. but we're looking to prioritize quickly as possible with states and governors to make those determinations. go ahead, ann. >> thank you. back on impeachment, you mentioned the president will be in close contact with senator schumer. do you expect that to be daily? for example, have they spoken since he's gotten back from delaware? p will that be a regular way that the president is briefed on the progress of the impeachment trial? >> i don't expect that would be

a primary topic. i actually expect it would be more about the american rescue plan and progress being made on that frot. there are, of course, markups happening this week, more on the house side. and the president remained in close touch with speaker pelosi and speaker schumer very regularly over the course of the last few weeks and expect that will continue. >> do you expect they will have any strategy discussions at all as the trial is unfolding? >> i don't expect that would be a primary point of discussion of their conversations. >> you said he's busy and not going to be spending moment by moment attention to it this week, but will he get a daily update or perhaps more frequently than that from white house staff? >> i don't expect that will be a primeary focus for him or senior staff either this week.

>> and about iran, when the president ruled out of dropping u.s. sanctions, he immediately didn't then go on and talk about some of the other strategies that are out there, including, for example, the united states might drop its objections to iran receiving an imf loan, covid-related imf loan. there were a couple other ideas that would allow iran to get some economic benefit that would not be sanctioned and maybe grease the wheel for negotiations. does the president have a few on those strategies and were they part of the discussions at the principal's meeting on friday? >> i could not read out a principal's meeting, which was primarily focused on a range of issue in the middle east. of course, iran was the topic of discussion or expected to be a topic of discussion. i think during the interview the president was asked about whether he would roll back sanctions and he conveyed, no,

the ball is in iran's court. it wasn't a more extensive conversation than that during the interview and that's long been his position. so that really is the next step in terms of engagements with iran from here. >> so he's not ruling it out necessarily, that there might be other ways to sort of help iran get back to the table that would be short of dropping u.s. sanctions? well, again, his view is the ball is in iran's court to come back in compliance with the jocpa and the united states doing the same and using that as a platform to build a longer and stronger agreement. but that is really his next step in his view of the process. >> i have one more on the post office if i could. on-time first class mail delivery dropped to 38% in december of this year from 92%

the year before. does the president have a view whether the postmaster general should keep his job and if he would like to see the postmaster general removed, would he move to change up the makeup of the governing board to make that happen? >> as i understand it, there are a number of openings on the governing board of the post office or vacancies that would work their way through a personnel process. i don't think i have anything more on this for you but i can follow up for our team and see what more we can report out. >> back on the subject of the covid checks, bernie sanders said it would be absurd to lower the threshold, income threshold and some other democrats have raised the prospect doing so could lead to a political backlash, given voters in georgia were specifically promised this aid by the president and they didn't have any reason to believe fewer people would qualify for that aid under the democrats' plan. so i'm wondering if that's something you guys were

concerned about and how you would address that criticism? >> well, the president proposed the $1,400 checks to -- plus $600, of course, $2,000 because he felt it was important and vital to get that direct relief to as many americans as possible and target that relief to the americans who need help the most. that's how his original plan and proposal was designed. he's also said, and i have said many times from here, that the final plan will look different from what the plan he proposed in his joint session address. it is still working its way with through congress and i don't think a conclusion has been made yet on the exact level of targeting. when it does, we're happy to have a conversation about that. but part of this is an opportunity for members of both parties and members who are across the political spectrum, of course, even in the democratic party, to weigh in on what the path forward should look like. go ahead in the back. >> thank you, jen. a little followup on iran and

china question. what does president biden consider the biggest threat to the u.s. national security? >> overall in the world? >> yes. >> well, i'm not sure i'm going to define that for you in this moment. there are a range of breadths he's talked about in the past. i'm sure he will have more to say on his national security approach and strategy in the weeks ahead. >> and last week a report made by ngo and universities was sent to the white house recommending the united states break negotiations on trade with brazil over climate and human rights violations. and likewise some democrats expressed the say opposition to extended economic partnership with brazil. is the white house paying attention to those reports and to what's happening in brazil? >> we certainly are paying close attention to what is happening

in brazil. obviously, we share a vibrant partnership that spans two centuries of mutual interest in shared values. and we have even announced in recent days, on february 5th, the united states government through the usda announced it delivered an additional $1.5 million in emergency covid response in brazil. and we, of course, remain closely engaged in what is a significant economic relationship. we are by far the largest investor in brazil, including in many of brazil's most innovative and growth-focused companies and will continue to strengthen our economic ties and large relationship in the months ahead. >> but the brazilian president and president biden on many issues are very different. how can they work together? >> just as is true in many of

our relationships, we look for opportunities to work together on issues where there's joint national interest and obviously, there's a significant economic relationship. and we will not hold back on areas where we disagree, whether it's climate or human rights or otherwise. so that will be the path forward with our relationship with brazil as well. go ahead, yamiche. >> i have two questions. the first is what should americans take away from the fact president biden campaigned on unity, got into office and about two weeks in, all but divided, it seems, to go with the process where democrats can pass a $1.9 trillion plan without the support of republicans? i know there are republicans across the country that point out saying they support this bill. but there is the fact democrats don't have to have republican support in congress for this bill and the president is seeing

to be supporting that process. i wonder what should people should take away from that? and will that definition of bipartisan be the one going forward with this white house . >> well, the president ran on unifying the country, not creating one particular party. but i will note 16 of the last 21 reconciliation bills that have gone through congress have been bipartisan. certainly there's opportunity for republicans to not only offer amendments as it's going through the house committee process and then through the senate committee process following that, but they will have an opportunity, of course, to vote for a package that the vast majority of the american people support. so the president -- his first priority is getting relief to the american people. but the vast majority of the public, democrats, republicans, independents are with him in that effort. there's a long history of bipartisan support for reconciliation bills. the parliamentary process, i don't think the american people are particularly worried about

how the direct relief gets into their hands. and if that's the process that it moves forward through, which seems likely at this point, the president would certainly support that. >> i was watching also on impeachment, i know the president you say isn't going to be watching it but there are going to be millions of americans who will be watching it. i wonder what the president's message is to americans, especially the ones mourning the loss of people who died in the capitol, who are still wondering whether or not the president and former president trump will be possibly acquitted in the trial, even if biden -- president biden doesn't want to say whether or not president trump should be convicted? i'm wondering if the white house has any message to americans for gearing up to be a tumultuous and dramatic two weeks? >> the president's focus is on delivering what those millions and millions of americans care deeply about, getting the pandemic under control, putting millions of americans back to work, getting vaccines in the

arms of americans and reopening schools. he's been clear that he views the events of january 6th as a horrific attack on our democracy. he put out a statement, we put out a statement from him, i should say, when the house voted but he will leave it to the senate to determine the path forward here. that doesn't change, in his view, he was elected to deliver upon the promises he made on the campaign trail. so that's what he's going to keep he's focus on in the weeks ahead. go ahead, yamiche. >> saying the gop can offer amendments, that doesn't mean they have to listen or accept them. so i wonder then if republicans have to be in step with what the democrats approve? i'm wondering if you could talk a bit more about this definition of bipartisan. i think you're saying the democrats are giving republicans an opportunity but there's still an idea the democrats are -- two weeks in are going it alone. >> this again, 16-21

reconciliation bills in the past received bipartisan support. the ideas in this package, the proposals in this package, have broad support from democrats, republicans and independents across the country. so i would pose the question back to republicans, why aren't you supporting what the vast majority of the public support? i'll leave it at that. go ahead. >> if i could, different topic. >> we can switch topics. >> the first memo january 23rd that the president ordered a 90-day commission to move commissions to assaults in the military, i'm wondering if there is anything more you can say about that commission to be looking at sexual assault in the military? >> i believe it's a commission at the department of defense. it's certainly a initiative the president of the united states supports but i would send you to the department of defense for more specifics about the timeline and membership.

>> some of the things the nation faced in the last several months, covid, january 6th, attack on democracy. there have been calls for a 9/11-style commission to write the official history of those events. is that something the president would support? >> of the covid commission? >> or january 6th. >> a determination of that kind would be made by congress, as you well know. and his focus at this point in time is on addressing the crisis in this moment, right, which is ensuring that more americans get shots in their arms, that we're getting the pandemic under control. there have been a report by hhs looking at the prior administration's handling of the covid crisis. we've also not held back in areas where we felt it was handled in a way that impacted the lives of millions. but at this point in time our focus is really on getting the pandemic under control and we'll leave that decision up to

congress. go ahead. >> two quick ones. has president biden reached out to anybody from the tampa bay buccaneers? if not, is that something that's going to happen today? >> very exciting, outcome of the super bowl if you're a fan of the buccaneers, but we will be inviting -- i don't have an update if it happened yet but i have an update we look forward to inviting the buccaneers as well as 2020 nba champions, lakers, to the white house when it is covid safe. but i don't know when that will take place yet. >> on immigration, there's new reporting i.c.e. is going to get some new guidance to no longer focus on deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of dui, simple assault, solicitation, drug-based crimes among other things. i'm curious how that is in the interest of public safety. >> well, first, it's guidelines that would be put out by the department of homeland security, and i certainly would send you to them. they have a confirmed secretary now. but the priority for the

enforcement of immigration laws will be on those who are opposing a national security threat, of course, public safety threat. and on recent arrivals. nobody is saying duis or assault is acceptable behavior and those arrested for such activity should be tried and sentenced as appropriate by local law enforcement. but we're talking about the prioritization of who is going to be deported from the country. >> and more broadly, would this be what biden was talking about in the debate when where he said in the obama administration they didn't do enough to reform the immigration system, because he was just vice president. but if he was president, is this the kind of change he was talking about? >> i think the kind of change he was talking about was putting forward an immigration bill at a time when modernization of immigration is long overdue, that addresses not only a pathway to citizenship but puts in place smart security measures and addresses the root causes of these issues in the countries

and central america. i think that's what he was referring to. but privatization, which again would be up to the department of homeland security, to ensure the focus is on the individuals who pose the greatest national security threat is also something he's long supported. go ahead, kaitlan. >> to be clear, former president trump has not requested any intelligence briefings, right? >> not that i'm aware of but i would point you to the intelligence community for more specifics. >> and to follow up on that, is there a reason morgan o'meara is no longser leading biden's daily security briefing? >> i believe he's overseeing the process of preparing materials but i don't have any more materials. i would point you to odi for more details. >> there's no -- he's not leaving the daily briefing? >> it is a very personal role to play and labor intensive but i point you to them on specifics

of the briefings and who will be applying the briefings. >> you have been watching jen psaki's daily briefing, in which he's arguing the president's package is the right package, it is supported. the american people doesn't care if it is passed by 51 votes or reconciliation or bipartisan way, they just want the covid relief, which they're obviously focus on, especially this week because they are trying not to focus on the impeachment trial. meanwhile, the president and treasury secretary janet yellen are arguing the risk of not passing his $1.9 trillion package is doing too little, not too much. president biden's economic adviser larry summers is making a different argument, saying the biden proposal is extremely generous and could risk inflation. the white house says summers is flat-out wrong. joining in know is larry summers, former economic adviser to president obama and treasury

secretary under president clinton. very nice to see you. let's talk about if the package is too big and generous, why do you think it could risk further inflation? >> look, i think we need to think about this package in the context of packages that have come and the package of overall economic policy. i think the president is completely right that we need to do something substantial here. i think he and secretary yellen are completely correct in their judgment that it's better to err on the side of doing too much than err on the side of doing too little. i think the question is a kwaun -- quantiaive one. in an economy that's already receiving a 900 billion dollar stimulus that was passed in december, that goldman sachs is predicting it will grow at faster than 6% this year, how we

manage the potential inflation risks going forward. how we make room for the vital public investments that the president talked about in the build back better program. my discomfort is with a 1.9 trillion dollar program that isn't investing in our infrastructure. that isn't investing in early childhood education. it isn't investing if anything green and i'd like to see us focus our support for the economy. also on expanding the economies potential. if we do it that way, we'll be increasing supply as well as

demand. it will be less risk of overheating the economy. you're talking about between the two stimulus program, 13, 14% of gdp are things we haven't seen since the second world war. it's the composition. >> let me ask you about the fact that so many people are not even being captured with the unemployment numbers. small businesses have gone out of business. they've not been able to try to get jobs. the pandemic is a unique experience. don't those people need to help as well as the covid vaccine help and the state and local

help that's part of this package? >> we do need to provide relief. we do need to provide support. the question is, how much and the question is targeting it as strategically as possible. if you look at the numbers as best we can judge them with this program, total household income will be much more equally distributed than anybody would have expected it to be without covid. total household income will be 5% larger than was being forecast when we didn't imagine covid happening at all. for well over half the workers who were laid off, unemployment insurance will provide more money than they would have been receiving if they had been continued to work and that

doesn't take account the various bits of tax support that are included in the program. strengthening food stamps, absolutely. helping small business, absolutely. we do need to think about what we can afford to do given the capacity of our economy. my argument is not with values. my argument is not with the general qualitative kinds of arguments that the administration's making. my concern just you got to look at the quantity and you got do look at the overall size.

make no mistake, it's important that it be passed. >> thank you so much. larry summers. today we remembering george schultz. the longest secretary of state who died over the weekend after turning 100 years old in december. he's one of two people to have had four cabinet posts. he said his best job is top diplomat with ronald reagan. he returned to stanford university's hoover institution after leaving government. promoting arms control, fighting against climate change. joining me is one of his very good friends.

you were russia expert before you were secretary of state. >> george influenced so many people in his 100-year consequential life. he did say being secretary of state was his best job in government exception for being a captive in the marines. he served his country. he's patriot. people who knew him in diplomacy knew him as always looking for solutions. when he came back to stanford, it was climate change that really got his attention and he learned the science and he learned the technology and he brought his economic and political instincts to it.

a lifelong learner. great mentor to so many people like me and so many others. a teacher, a great businessman and above all, he will be remembered as the person who channels ronald reagan's great instincts about the soviet union. we're all better for the 100 years. i know you and alan knew him well. he influenced a lot of people. >> covering secretary of state, the cold war and the summits with gorbachev were so -- facing the hard liners. there we see him showing him in red square.

he played a such a critical role in changing the whole future. >> he channelled reagan's tough minded instincts. mr. gorbachev, tear down that wall. they got the most remarkable arms control treaty perhaps in our history.

he had the trust of ronald reagan. ronald reagan knew that when he sent him out into the world he was going to do the bidding of the president and of the administration and that made other diplomats respect not just george's intellect and value but his ability to deliver on a behalf of the president. he was a consequential figure. he'll be missed but 100 years of a consequential life, we're all fortunate to have been a part of that. >> a blessing to so many thank you for sharing your thoughts. thank you. >> absolutely. >> that does it. thanks for being with us. kasie hunt is in for chuck todd up next on mtp daily only on msnbc.

welcome to monday. it's "meet the press daily." i'm kacie hunt in for chuck todd. the biden administration pushes ahead with efforts to fast track covid relief. a sitting member of congress has died after a battle with covid and cancer. we'll have more on that in just a moment. the briefing comes as senator negotiators are closing in on an agreement involving the details of trump's impeachment trial that starts tomorrow. president biden wants to stay focused on covid relief throughout the trial and suggested he doesn't have much of an interest in watching it either and he will continue to engage in discussions with congressional leaders about